English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

If you look at the facts it could not be clearer that the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight.

The argument you hear from conservatives over and over is that Reagan's huge increases in defense spending made the Soviet Union spend itself into extinction try to match our strength. But that is simply not supported by the facts. Soviet defense expenditures only grew a small amount during this time, and that was all pre-planned.

The Soviet Union was never as strong or as dangerous as we were told all along, it was just used as an excuse for us to spend trillions on new weapons systems every few years. As a Soviet spy says in the movie 'The Good Shepard', the Soviet War Machine was no more than paint over rust.

The Soviet system collapsed in a heap of corruption, incompetence, waste and fraud. And if we look around us we can see the American political system heading inexorably towards the same fate.

2007-09-05 11:30:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Even though he managed a good sound bite with the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" bit, not directly, no. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of the Cold War and Gorbachev wanted to tone down the conflict, since he had realized the USSR simply couldn't afford it anymore (pouring half your GDP into the military to match an enemy who's only committing about 5% of it's to the same thing is not a winning proposition). Yes, Reagan had upped military spending some while in office, and that contributed to the difficulty the USSR had in keeping up, so he can take some small creadit in that sense, but the decades of committment to the War from from prior administrations, obviously had a lot to do with it, too.

2007-09-05 11:22:23 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0 0

Yes.

The simple explanation involves Reagan foreign policy.

He built our military, forcing the USSR Warsaw Pact Countries to spend to keep pace.

He provided military aid to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in return for cheap oil.

SInce Oil revenue was the primary source of hard cash for the USSR and Warsaw pact, so when international prices for oil fell, they could not maintain their military spending, and government managed economies.

The wall fell because as Wet Germany prospered, East Germany fell into near depression until reunification became the only way to avoid absolute collapse.

So Reagan's policies set the conditions and a bunch of Germans with hammers and other tools or construction machinery took the wall down.

2007-09-05 11:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by Brian B 3 · 0 0

The answer to that question is yes and no. It is widely believed that the USSR was in a downward spiral and would fail no matter who was President of the US. However Ronald Regan was instrumental in hastening the collapse of the USSR by out spending the Soviets and forcing them to spend resources and capital on defense spending. This forced the Soviets into a precarious position which brought about the financial collapse of the USSR.

2007-09-05 11:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by levindis 4 · 1 1

Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall

2007-09-05 11:18:46 · answer #5 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 3 0

Yes

2007-09-05 11:19:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

for the most part, our large military spending made it impossible for some countries to match the spending while their population starved.

2007-09-05 11:17:33 · answer #7 · answered by muslim_pork_king 2 · 1 0

I think it was more Mikael Gorbachev and his reforms. Reagan was fortunate to have a great relationship with Mikael.

2007-09-05 11:19:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

No, rather the decline of an empire due to corruption and all the vulnerabilities that befall empires.

2007-09-05 11:22:34 · answer #9 · answered by HP 4 · 0 1

He was the primary catalyst; sped it up by a few years.

2007-09-05 11:36:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers